Is there Evidence in the Gospels that the Virgin Birth was a Cover-Up for... Something Else?

a reply to: Sigismundus

Mary is Isis. She got Horus(Jesus) after Osiris dead. So it is indeed an invitro story. Poor Joseph only got invented because a woman shouldn't have a child without a father, in the christian world. But her sperm giver lived in the Osiris belt... Even the cross is from egyptian mythology.

a reply to: mapsurfer_

It doesn't match up with the Nicene or Apostles Creeds because they promote a literal interpretation, not an allegorical one. I don't agree with church interpretations, they're disingenuous and misleading.

Jesus represents the human condition, not some God-man who lived and died for sins 2,000 years ago. He represents those of us who turn away from doing wrong and embrace a life of humility and love for our neighbors.

Check out the threads in my signature, they're a lot more clear on what my views are and they explain how I came to this conclusion. The Bible is not a literal history book, it is a collection of books with allegorical and spiritual lessons within them.

Most of the Bible sounds ridiculous when read literally, but there is something below the surface that one must find on their own. I can't show it to you, only you can, you just have to open your mind to a different way of looking at it.

originally posted by: trifecta
The Virgin Birth was a surrogacy. Mary didn't have sex. She didn't conventionally get pregnant. Christ was planted in her for incubation. Nor did Christ pass through the vagina canal, as in standard childbirth. Christ was a Breach birth. His head was right-side up and too large for any normal birth. He was unconventionally extracted. Mary's midwife was The Star of Bethlehem.

You saw the baby delivered, did you? I mean, you seem to know so much about what actually happened, you must have witnessed it in a former lifetime. Were you one of the shepherds?

To be serious, some of us are trying to understand the truth about the past. There is already too much fantasy in the gospel accounts. We do not need yet more added to them.

originally posted by: Sigismundus
What exactly was the author...trying to tell us?

Allegorical interpretation is nothing but a massive propaganda tool.

The Bible is to be taken literally unless the text in question is obviously symbolic.

Mainstream academia has always been determined to discredit the Bible as a historical record but the literal interpretation of scripture has been confirmed numerous times by archaeological discoveries.

The Bible DOES frequently employ allegory, such as in Gal.4:21-24 but it also makes it perfectly clear when doing so.

Historically when people do not like what a document says or they want to make it fit their philosophical bent they allegorize that document. This is what Philo did with the Jewish Bible in Alexandria, Egypt and, early on, some Christians picked up this habit from him and imported it into the church.

digitalcommons.liberty.edu...

Allegory, when done by a well-trained, godly interpreter, can have great value. It is obvious that Jesus (Matt. 13:18-23) and Paul (I Cor. 9:9-10; 10:1-4; Gal. 4:21-31) both set a biblical precedent for this approach. However, when used as a tool to prove one’s pet theological doctrine or to defend one’s inappropriate actions, it becomes a great stumbling block. The major problem is that there is no means to substantiate the meaning from the text itself. The sinfulness of mankind has turned this method (and all methods to some extent) into a means to prove almost anything and then to call it biblical.

The Contextual Method Of Biblical Interpretation

If you don't believe the Bible....fine...don't believe it. But don't suggest that one part should be taken allegory when another part of the Bible CLEARLY indicates that it isn't. I'm guessing you don't do that with other forms of literature, do you?

If you have a history book on George Washington, do you decide to read chapter 3 as an allegory, but the rest of it as fact simply because you don't want to believe the events of chapter 3 took place? If chapter 14 is believed to be historical---and it refers to the events of chapter 3 as historical....why would you believe chapter 3 to be allegory?

Is The Bible Literal Or Allegorical?

The Bible, history's most published, studied, translated and quoted book, is also its most misused and misinterpreted book. Cults and false religions use it to their own ends and others simply misinterpret it. That this occurs so often leads many to assume the Bible has no clear meaning. This is a false assumption.

As mentioned in the introduction, allegorizing Scripture has a long and destructive history. The reason many have been sold on the allegorical method is the false assumption that since the Bible is a spiritual book, inspired by the Holy Spirit, that it therefore contains hidden or secret meanings.

Many contemporary preachers are quite adept at allegorizing passages of Scripture. According to them, Jesus can be found teaching modern success theories, positive thinking, liberation theology (Marxism), Unitarianism, the New Age, or anything else. Remember that the key reason for the allegorical method's existence was to integrate the Bible with Greek philosophy or whatever other contemporary worldly ideas that seemed popular and desirable. The resurrection can be allegorized into the new hope that springs into being with the cycles of nature: bunnies, and green grass. Or it can be allegorized as something analogous to ugly larvae changing through metamorphosis into butterflies.

cicministry.org...

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word, at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.

The Golden Rule of Interpretation

Those holding to an allegorical interpretation of the Bible point to a variety of scriptures and use them as proof-texts for the claim that God intended for His Word to be interpreted allegorically, and as we shall see, many of these verses have been taken out of context or redefined so as to give the appearance of supporting the false allegorical mode of interpretation. www.scribd.com...

originally posted by: BO XIAN
In many dozens, hundreds of cases, THE LITERALISTS WERE ALWAYS PROVEN CORRECT as archaeology uncovered more and more confirmation that the Bible was literally true in detail after detail. Some things are literal AND symbolic, both/and. I don't think a great number of things in the Bible are primarily or only symbolic.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Sigismundus

Mary is Isis. She got Horus(Jesus) after Osiris dead. So it is indeed an invitro story. Poor Joseph only got invented because a woman shouldn't have a child without a father, in the christian world. But her sperm giver lived in the Osiris belt... Even the cross is from egyptian mythology.

You are a wise person indeed.

I started a thread asking the ATS audience if they knew a correlation between The Messiah and Horus (plus Uriel), and found little momentum.

You know today marks the beginning of the "Golden Age of Horus"? The Goddess Isssisss (intentional misspell) just loan her power through the Full Moon. Horus is believed to have both his mother's and father's eyes (The Sun and Moon). The Blood Moon Tetrad that just finished this year, is too associated to this culmination.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: trifecta
The Virgin Birth was a surrogacy. Mary didn't have sex. She didn't conventionally get pregnant. Christ was planted in her for incubation. Nor did Christ pass through the vagina canal, as in standard childbirth. Christ was a Breach birth. His head was right-side up and too large for any normal birth. He was unconventionally extracted. Mary's midwife was The Star of Bethlehem.

you must have witnessed it in a former lifetime. .

MMMMMMMaybee.....

The spiritual World is gossamer.

originally posted by: JohnthePhilistine
So you hate your parents. Big deal, you can still cook a nice vegan ham for your partner and dress-up for the occasion. I would have thought you would be excited for an excuse to use felt and glitter.

I just don't get "Vegan ham"? Is there a "Vegan" pig out there somewhere? So anti-meat, anti carnivore that the first thing you do in your new found religion is to create fake meat? I don't get it?. "Dressing up"? You mean I have to put on pants?

originally posted by: mapsurfer_
You may interpret this story to be allegory but I disagree. The event (virgin birth of Jesus) was fulfilling OT prophesy of Isaiah and literally interpreted as such by the Christian religions and Muslims.

You are 100% correct.

It's rather telling that those who make those allegory claims very rarely ever back it up with evidence.

I think the real reason for this is because they know that the evidence is so laughable that it is best to not expose it.

This is why I usually scroll past most of the posts written by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 and many others just like him.

Very rarely do they have anything worthwhile to read and the Gnostic agenda has become far too obvious.

a reply to: Sigismundus

“A woman of (the House of Imran) prayed: ‘O my sustainer! Behold, unto Thee do I vow (the child) that is in my womb to be devoted to Thy service. Accept it, then, from me: verily, Thou alone art all-hearing, all-knowing!’ But when she had given birth to the child, she said: ‘O my sustainer! Behold, I have given birth to a female’ – the while God had been fully aware of what she would give birth to – ‘and the male is not like the female. And I have named her Mary, and verily, I seek Thy protection for her and her offspring against Satan, the accursed.'” (3:35-36)

The Holy Virgin is the only woman mentioned by name in the Quran, and the entire 19th Chapter of the Quran is named specifically after her. The Quran details how she took a special secluded place in the Temple where she worshiped God devoutly:

“And mention Mary in the Book: when she withdrew from her people to a place in the East and secluded herself from them…” (19:16-17). It was there that the Angel Gabriel appeared to her to give her the good news of the birth of her son, Jesus:

“…We sent her Our spirit, which appeared to her just like a man. She said, ‘I take refuge from you with the Benevolent One, if you are conscientious.’ He said, ‘I am only a messenger from your Lord, to give you a sinless son.'” (16:17-19)

Moreover, God singles out the Virgin Mary as the ideal example of the believer:

“And God cites as an example of those who believed…Mary, the daughter of Imran. She maintained her chastity, then we blew into her from Our spirit. She believed in the words of her Lord and His scriptures; she was obedient.” (66:11-12)

This has been the case for over fourteen centuries, and it should come as no surprise that such a prominent figure in Christianity should have such an exalted place in Islam. No devout Muslim would ever fathom attacking the character of the Virgin Mary.

Some comments here are even hard for me to even read, assumption after assumption everyone who has his own view about what happened. I (and hopefully most Christians here) will never doubt the virginity of Mary.

Peace

a reply to: FieldCmdrCohen

You wrote QUOTE "It does seem contrary to the gospel writers' attempts to link Jesus (known to them only as a teacher with memorable sayings) to Hebrew royalty and the Davidian line. (And we all know how weird it is to try connecting a miraculous child with no earthly father to his paternal heritage.) The political riddles in both the OT and NT are some of my favorite parts of the Bible..." UNQUOTE

Thanks for your post - I'm a little curious as to what 'political riddles' could be extracted from the Virgin Birth Narratives in 'Matthew' and 'Luke' as you suggest - can you elaborate a little on this subject - you've piqued my interest not a little....

a reply to: Sigismundus

The immaculate conception was an alien abduction impregnation.

originally posted by: trifecta
a reply to: mapsurfer_

Star of Bethlehem=Holy Spirit.

What does astrology have to do with it? How do you equate a distant star to a spirit? Seriously, we do know the recipe for making human babies.... and that does not include a spirit, nor a distant star. I've read posts about the "star" not being a star at all but perhaps some other unknown/unexplained phenomena, but the claim was the magi navigated to the birthplace of Jesus following yonder star. Wha? How they do that? One person said it was a supernova, and says a meteor or comet but neither of those things are a GPS for the magi. Maybe more allegory or whatever, but my brain tells me the claim is bull and I've seen no reasonable explaination that causes a virgin birth (or conception depending on which scripture your reading).

Easy for a person to become a Christian by saying "Yes, I believe Jesus died on a cross to save me from sin." and continue your Christian journey, but when you get to the virgin birth part, you have to accept that a miracle occurred and this happened. I have a hard time developing my religious faith based on miracles (something that occurs that defies the laws of nature and science). I went to Christian Counseling twice, and they basic response was to include the questionable dogma as being authoritatively, incontrivertibly true without explaination or debate on this, or any other tough questions about the bible.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: Sigismundus

The immaculate conception was an alien abduction impregnation.

Immaculate Conception is actually a different concept than the "Virgin Birth of Jesus".
The Catholic claim is that Mary (mother of Jesus) was an immaculate conception (free from sin) despite the fact that she had a biological mother and father. Immaculent was the Catholics way of deeming her free of sin based on the merits of Jesus.

If the scripture had said she was impregnated by an alien lifeform, it would have actually been much more believable than a virgin birth. What the scripture suggests is that the Holy Spirit was a "incubus" the way it is defined which is actually supported in OT Genesis 6:4 (The Nephilium) seems to suggest there were multiple "Sons of God" having sex with human women. Honestly, I critique this to be far to similar to other mythology.

a reply to: mapsurfer_

Immaculate Conception is actually a different concept than the "Virgin Birth of Jesus".
The Catholic claim is that Mary (mother of Jesus) was an immaculate conception (free from sin)

Exactly. The conception of Mary was "immaculate" - not the conception of Jesus.....

Mary would have been tainted otherwise, and not suitable for growing 'The Christ'. SHE was "pure", because of her own conception in her own mother's womb.

a reply to: mapsurfer_

Doesn't really matter since all of the immaculate and virgin crap is a bunch of concocted BS, along with every single gospel singing religion on the planet.

originally posted by: mapsurfer_

originally posted by: trifecta
a reply to: mapsurfer_

Star of Bethlehem=Holy Spirit.

What does astrology have to do with it? How do you equate a distant star to a spirit? Seriously, we do know the recipe for making human babies.... and that does not include a spirit, nor a distant star. I've read posts about the "star" not being a star at all but perhaps some other unknown/unexplained phenomena, but the claim was the magi navigated to the birthplace of Jesus following yonder star. Wha? How they do that? One person said it was a supernova, and says a meteor or comet but neither of those things are a GPS for the magi. Maybe more allegory or whatever, but my brain tells me the claim is bull and I've seen no reasonable explaination that causes a virgin birth (or conception depending on which scripture your reading).

Easy for a person to become a Christian by saying "Yes, I believe Jesus died on a cross to save me from sin." and continue your Christian journey, but when you get to the virgin birth part, you have to accept that a miracle occurred and this happened. I have a hard time developing my religious faith based on miracles (something that occurs that defies the laws of nature and science). I went to Christian Counseling twice, and they basic response was to include the questionable dogma as being authoritatively, incontrivertibly true without explaination or debate on this, or any other tough questions about the bible.

Some sources of information point to your "phenomenon" as an actual Spirit. I can't see how this is less plausible than an immaculate conception or virgin birth.

a reply to: Akragon
a reply to: Sigismundus

Hey Akragon -

You wrote: QUOTE "[It] would probably make more sense then the "virgin birth" legend... Virgin could also be a mistranslation in the gospels, which was meant to mean "young woman" Its pretty hard to tell what actually happened from the limited knowledge we have of the events surrounding the life of Jesus - it seems the church does tend to embellish in many cases..." UNQUOTE

Thanks for your input here - as one priest told me, 'the Virgin Birth is a Phallusy' (admittedly he was making a rather crude joke, but it did have rather a sharp 'point' to it...)

To say that Miryam of Galilee was impregnated by rape (or seduction?) is one way of looking at the Infancy Narratives of 'Matthew' and 'Luke' both of which seem full of innuendo buried into the text.

The 4th Gospel ('according to John' whoever he was) also seems to rub such innuendo into the face of his audience when he records the sneers of the Judaean scribes who are (in the gospel) speaking to 'Jesus' face to face when they said things like 'WE were not born of fornication' with the word we (Gk. Εμείς δεν γεννηθήκαμε από πορνεία) emphasised in the first word of the sentence.

That Jesus had a father-fixation is something that intrigued Freud and others who have studied the matter, and we have a number of places in the Council Approved Canonical Greek Gospels of 'ho Iesous' calling the Most High of Israel his 'Daddy' in his native Aramaic ( 'Abba' אבא) which is suggestive of such a fixation possibly brought about by a traumatic stress of some sort from childhood (did Joseph divorce Miryam of Galilee? was an early death of Joseph? etc.)

At any rate, 'Joseph' seems to disappear from the narrative just when he put in an appearance...

In one place in the gospel of 'John' we have 'Jesus' showing quite a sharp tongue with his biological mother
(see John 2:4 'and the mother of Jesus was there...and she said to him, They have no wine...' and he replied saying, Woman, what do I have to do with thee? ' = (mah li ulekha - Aram. lit. 'what to me and to you?') which if taken at face value would be tantamount to saying in modern American English something like 'Shut your trap ! Can't you see I'm busy?'

In the apocryphal Gospel of gospel of the Hebrews we read 'Jesus' (quoted by Jerome) saying things like : "Just now my mother the Holy Spirit led me by one of my hairs and took me to the great mountain of Tabor" which overlooks the Galilee at a height of nearly 9,000 feet.

In the Greek canonical council approved Gospel of 'Matthew' 12:48-50 and 'Luke' 8:18-20 we read:

"Then his mother and his brothers came to him but could not come near him because of the crush - and someone said to him Your mother and your brothers are standing outside waiting to see you. But he answered them saying Who is my Mother and my brothers and my sisters? He who does the will of the Most High is my mother and my brothers and my sisters !"

That 'Jesus' was regarded by his own family as 'insane' is recorded by the 2nd Council approved Gospel 'according to Mark' (whoever he was) in chapter 3:21

"and when his family heard about this, they wanted to put him away - for they said, "He is out of his mind." (γὰρ ὅτι ἐξέστη)

These are just some of the unsettling little factoids that persons who style themselves 'Christians' are either totally ignorant of - or do not wish to think/talk about (especially the Clergy, I'm afraid) but which emerges from any 'close-reading' of the very texts they consider 'sacred inerrant scripture'.

Have read several historians that claimed she was between 9 and 11 years old at the time which would make rape a logical explanation.

It would also explain why she might voluntarily get married to a guy historians also claim was around 80 or 90.

originally posted by: mapsurfer_

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The virgin birth isn't meant to be taken literally. Just like with the story in Eden, the virgin birth is meant to be taken allegorically. It represents a greater truth that is written within the story that must be pulled out by the reader. If you take it at face value it will seem a bit ridiculous, but if taken allegorically it makes perfect sense.

This is my interpretation of the virgin birth: Mary is a virgin that gives birth to life. What else is a Mother, is a virgin, and gives birth to life? Earth. Mother Earth gave rise to life billions of years ago with an "immaculate conception" that is not fully understood. How did the "virgin" Earth give rise (birth) to life? We don't know yet, Christians will say the same about how the virgin Mary gave birth, they don't exactly know either.

Coming up with all these theories on the events surrounding Jesus' birth is to miss the forest for the trees in my opinion. There's no need to speculate on the events because they never truly happened in any way that the bible describes, at least not literally or historically.

Oh trust me, Christians take the virgin birth quite literally and the whole deity narrative falls aparts if Jesus were just a mere human like the rest of us. I think the Mother Earth interpretation is misguided. Christians have to buy into the idea that miracles do occur because the bible is full of them. I think a virgin birth is untenable because we all know about the bird and bees. Apparently impregnated with a Holy Spirit not of this world brings up all kinds of questions and zero answers. I can make a strong argument that there is no way an invisible spirit is going to impregnate a female. It has never happened before, or since. So, did Mary lie about having sex, or did a miracle occur?

I don't buy the Mother Earth comparison either. It sounds like he's saying that the Earth is a bastard !

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: mapsurfer_
You may interpret this story to be allegory but I disagree. The event (virgin birth of Jesus) was fulfilling OT prophesy of Isaiah and literally interpreted as such by the Christian religions and Muslims.

You are 100% correct.

It's rather telling that those who make those allegory claims very rarely ever back it up with evidence.

This statement blows my mind, not because of your unique conclusion, but the mechanism that allows you to discover a #-ton of evidence for your theory, while claiming there is rarely evidence to suggest it could be an allegory.

That's just pure wrong, from a facts standpoint. Again, not that your conclusion is wrong, but to suggest there is no potential evidence is mind blowing.

The #1 most watched video on the internet(during 4 years of Google Videos, before YouTube) at hundreds of millions of views, was a short film merely suggesting it is an allegory. To claim there is no tangible evidence might be physically possible at this point, but there is definitely metaphorical evidence.

Needless to say Zeitgeist(www.youtube.com...) despite it's criticisms today, was not something full of 'no evidence' and a rather refreshing new look at something old, when it was initially received. Not even divulging on the idea that this could Pre-date Christianity itself, it clearly suggests some carefully planted roots.

Christian sects have the ability to put divine status before public acceptance. It might be possible, you're a sheep, and just didn't notice the rest of the world pointing to this, on this one. No evidence? Let me laugh one more time. Ha.